Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 533–550 | Cite as

Recognizing cognates and interlingual homographs: Effects of code similarity in language-specific and generalized lexical decision

  • Kristin Lemhöfer
  • Ton Dijkstra
Article

Abstract

In four experiments, we investigated how cross-linguistic overlap in semantics, orthography, and phonology affects bilingual word recognition in different variants of the lexical decision task. Dutch-English bilinguals performed a language-specific or a generalized lexical decision task including words that are spelled and/or pronounced the same in English and in Dutch and that matched one-language control words from both languages. In Experiments 1 and 3, “false friends” with different meanings in the two languages (e.g.,spot) were presented, whereas in Experiments 2 and 4 cognates with the same meanings across languages (e.g.,film) were presented. The language-specific Experiments 1 and 2 replicated and qualified an earlier study (Dijkstra, Grainger, & Van Heuven, 1999). In the generalized Experiment 3, participants reacted equally quickly on Dutch-English homographs and Dutch control words, indicating that their response was based primarily on the fastest available orthographic code (i.e., Dutch). In Experiment 4, cognates were recognized faster than English and Dutch controls, suggesting coactivation of the cognates’ semantics. The nonword results indicate that the bilingual rejection procedure can, to some extent, be language specific. All results are discussed within the BIA+ (bilingual interactive activation) model for bilingual word recognition.

Keywords

Word Recognition Lexical Decision Lexical Decision Task Control Word Orthographic Representation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Van Rijn, H. (1993).The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. University of Pennsylvania Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
  2. Borowsky, R., &Masson, M. E. J. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brysbaert, M., Van Dyck, G., &Van De Poel, M. (1999). Visual word recognition in bilinguals: Evidence from masked phonological priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caramazza, A., &Brones, I. (1979). Lexical access in bilinguals.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,13, 212–214.Google Scholar
  5. Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T., &Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.),Attention and performance VI (pp. 535–555). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Cristoffanini, P., Kirsner, K., &Milech, D. (1986). Bilingual lexical representation: The status of Spanish-English cognates.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,38A, 367–393.Google Scholar
  7. De Groot, A. M. B., Delmaar, P., &Lupker, S. J. (2000). The processing of interlexical homographs in translation recognition and lexical decision: Support for nonselective access to bilingual memory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,53A, 397–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Groot, A. M. B., &Nas, G. L. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 90–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dijkstra, A., Grainger, J., &Van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology.Journal of Memory & Language,41, 496–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dijkstra, A., &Van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision.Bilingualism: Language & Cognition,5, 175–197.Google Scholar
  11. Dijkstra, A., Van Jaarsveld, H., &Ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing.Bilingualism: Language & Cognition,1, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doctor, E. A., &Klein, D. (1992). Phonological processing in bilingual word recognition. In R. J. Harris (Ed.),Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 237–252). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferrand, L., &Grainger, J. (1994). Effects of orthography are independent of phonology in masked form priming.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 365–382.Google Scholar
  14. Font, N. (2001).Rôle de la langue dans l’accès au lexique chez les bilingues: Influence de la proximité orthographique et sémantique interlangue sur la reconnaissance visuelle de mots. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université Paul Valery, Montpellier.Google Scholar
  15. Gerard, L. D., &Scarborough, D. L. (1989). Language-specific lexical access of homographs by bilinguals.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gollan, T. H., Forster, K. I., &Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew-English bilinguals.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 1122–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grainger, J., &Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model.Psychological Review,103, 518–565.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system.Bilingualism: Language & Cognition,1, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacobs, A. M., Rey, A., Ziegler, J. C., &Grainger, J. (1998). MROM-p: An interactive activation, multiple readout model of orthographic and phonological processes in visual word recognition. In J. Grainger & A. M. Jacobs (Eds.),Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition (pp. 147–188). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Jared, D., &Kroll, J. F. (2001). Do bilinguals activate phonological representations in one or both of their languages when naming words?Journal of Memory & Language,44, 2–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kawamoto, A. H., &Zemblidge, J. H. (1992). Pronunciation of homographs.Journal of Memory & Language,31, 349–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim, J., &Davis, C. (2003). Task effects in masked cross-script translation and phonological priming.Journal of Memory & Language,49, 484–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lemhöfer, K., & Radach, R. (2003).The role of language context in bilingual word recognition. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  24. Pecher, D. (2001). Perception is a two-way junction: Feedback semantics in word recognition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 545–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pexman, P. M., &Lupker, S. J. (1999). Ambiguity and visual word recognition: Can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects?Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,53, 323–334.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Pexman, P. M., Lupker, S. J., &Jared, D. (2001). Homophone effects in lexical decision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Plaut, D. C. (1999). Computational modeling of word reading, acquired dyslexia, and remediation. In R. M. Klein & P. A. McMullen (Eds.),Converging methods for understanding reading and dyslexia (pp. 339–372). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Reimer, J. F., Brown, J. S., &Lorsbach, T. C. (2001). Orthographically mediated inhibition effects: Evidence of activational feedback during visual word recognition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 102–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., &Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access.Journal of Memory & Language,46, 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sánchez Casas, R. M., Davis, C. W., &García Albea, J. E. (1992). Bilingual lexical processing: Exploring the cognate/noncognate distinction.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,4, 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seidenberg, M. S., Waters, G. S., Barnes, M. A., &Tanenhaus,M. K. (1984). When does irregular spelling or pronunciation influence word recognition?Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,23, 383–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van Hell, J. G., &Dijkstra, T. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 780–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T., &Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,39, 458–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Wijnendaele, I., &Brysbaert, M. (2002). Visual word recognition in bilinguals: Phonological priming from the second to the first language.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 616–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Von Studnitz, R., &Green, D. W. (2002). Interlingual homograph interference in German-English bilinguals: Its modulation and locus of control.Bilingualism: Language & Cognition,5, 1–23.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NICIUniversity of NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations